Why I won't shed any tears over celebrity privacy fears

Wendy Squires

Here are some words which won't fall from my lips in a hurry: poor celebrity superstars. This week, I was supposed to sympathise with two, Liz Hurley and Gwyneth Paltrow. But there was little pity I could muster.

On Wednesday, in a thinly veiled reference to her rumoured split from Shane Warne, Hurley tweeted, ''Apologies to loyal followers for Twitter silence on recent events. Too raw & personal to share right now''. (Warne later tweeted that the rumours were rubbish and, ''Yes we're sorting through (private) issues. But we're not throwing the towel in yet''.

Everyone can relate to break-ups being hard. And having that pain aired in public? Even harder. But here's what stifles my empathy. I don't pose with my partners in brokered magazine spreads in exchange for hundreds of thousands of pounds while gushing, ''He's my soulmate'' and ''I've never been more in love'', then expect the public to avert their eyes when things go bad. Nor do I gather his kids to pose with me, all dressed in white like virginal Von Trapps, and reveal ''they call me mum'', knowing full well their real mother will read it.

But enough of Liz. Let's look at poor Gwyneth's week shall we? The Oscar-winner got herself in a right flap when The New York Times obtained an email she wrote to her celebrity friends. ''Vanity Fair is threatening to put me on the cover of their magazine,'' she harrumphed. ''If you are asked for quotes or comments, please decline. Also, I recommend you all never do this magazine again.''

Advertisement

The crime here? Well, the prestigious magazine Gwyneth and her famous friends would once have literally eaten (if it was organic) for a cover spot was working on a profile of the actress without her approval. We're talking unsanctioned, as in hasn't gone through her agent, manager or publicist. Like, where they can write anything - the truth even.

Vanity Fair's editor, Graydon Carter, responded in a statement: ''We wouldn't be doing our job if there wasn't a little bit of tension between Vanity Fair and its subjects. In any given week, I can expect to hear from a disgruntled subject in Hollywood, Washington, or on Wall Street. That's the nature of the beast.''

Oh, and what a beast it is, Graydon, a ravenous monster fuelled on ego and pandering and we, its rabid, fervent feeders. I applaud you for fighting back and poking a stick or two into a gilded cage for a change. It is time.

On a much humbler scale to Graydon, while working for Australian magazines I have had to try to secure images and interviews with celebrities. And it was hell. The feting and fawning pleading emails to entourages of publicists, photographers, agents et al who all have entourages of their own. It troubled me in the beginning of my career and near on 20 years later I was at my absolute end. Appalled. The gloss was gone.

Here's how it works. Securing the privilege of paying about $30,000 for a cover image (which might be up to five years old) is harder than getting a Liberal policy costing pre-election.

First, you contact the photographer, who was demanded by said celeb at an inflated cost, all footed by the magazine, and they will direct you to their agent. You will then be informed of an approved publication date, sometimes months or even years away. It must be timed to promote whatever is making them zillions lately - movie, cookbook, excruciating single.

The photographer's agent will not sell you the image without the approval of the celebrity's agent. And to get that, you need to show them the story that will run with the picture. Yep, you read right, the publicists get to control which pictures can be published and the accompanying story. One bad word deemed unflattering and it's a soup Nazi-like ''no cover for you!'' from the image keepers, who then give it to a rival magazine that will toe the line. So, as an editor, your only choice is to smile and basically bend over. Editorial integrity? I don't think so.

So, here's what I'd like to say to Gwyneth that Graydon Carter can't: suck it up, sister. You can't have it all your way. I know you think you can, that it's your right, but the reality is there is still such a thing as a free press out there that is allowed to show a side of you rarely seen. In your case, not through the eyes of Stella and Beyonce and Jay-Z and Valentino, but real people who may tell us something more about you than your next role or latest kale recipes.

Because here's what's happened thanks to the controlled image factories that surround celebrity today - the paparazzi has become the only true journalists in show business.

Celebrities may hate them, bleating invasion of privacy, but those photos of them captured in thongs, unflattering leggings and last night's Clearasil (or whatever is the Chanel equivalent) at the organic markets are the only time the wizard's curtain is pulled back and the public gets a glimpse of reality.

It is humanising, consoling and liberating for we, the consumers of these brands - because that's what celebrities are - to know that maybe, just maybe, everything isn't perfect in their world either. That their lives could be a tiny bit like our own.

I'm not going to say I approve of paparazzi photos of children because I don't. However, any celebrity happy to pose with their kids in darling Dolce and Cabana suits and adorable Dior gowns for Annie Leibovitz is a hypocrite to later cry intrusion if same kid is captured mid-tanty at Wal-Mart. If you sell the baby photos then you must expect future attention paid to said child. Public interest is not a tap. Use your kids as props - as Liz has - and you can't turn that off.

So, my advice for Gwyneth in regards to Vanity Fair is, well : real life can't be photoshopped. And we in the media don't need your approval to write the truth. In fact, I think the experience will be good for you. You might come over this time interesting at worst, relatable at best. Better than beige surely?

Saturday Age columnist Wendy Squires is a journalist, editor and author.

4 comments

"So, as an editor, your only choice is to smile and basically bend over."

How exactly is that the only choice? Editorial integrity is dead not because they have only one choice, but because editors believe they have only one choice.

Commenter

habel

Date and time

September 21, 2013, 11:25AM

So, the children of celebrities are fair game. Their privacy and well being is forfeit because their parents have exposed them to the public. And the profit of magazines is of greater importance than a child's right to simply be a child, and not have strangers take photos of them.

Commenter

K Underwood

Date and time

September 21, 2013, 1:40PM

If the said celebrity uses their kids as props for stories for which they are paid big money, then yes, and they will have to answer to their kids when they want to know why their lives are public property, and exactly who opened the door to that public.

Commenter

Can't have it both ways

Date and time

September 21, 2013, 5:37PM

Wendy, you can't write "it is humanising, consoling and liberating for we". It should be "for us, the consumers, etc"